CompuServe Thread

#Elect Day et.al.

27 messages in this thread
#173588From: Bob OramNov 22, 1994 8:15 PM
PMFJI….But speeking of loose cannons, did you all catch Jesse Helms warning to Clinton? Now theres a loose atlas missile!!! Boy, the funs just starting The Bobster….going Amiga 'til the hard drive dies.
#173598From: Paul IdolNov 22, 1994 8:43 PM
He should be tried for treason. He said he thinks Clinton is not a fit Commander in Chief, he said the armed forces agreed with him, and he warned Clinton that if he was stupid enough to go to South Carolina he should bring a bodyguard (as though any President wouldn't). Imagine the response if some Democrat said something like that about a Republican. And every conservative around is bemoaning the so-called leftward bias of the media. The media may possibly have a leftward lean, albeit a slight one, but that doesn't stop them from circling over and then descending to devour any public figure who shows the least little sign of vulnerability. It's all sales sales sales and ratings ratings ratings. Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#173658From: Karl F. KugelNov 23, 1994 12:10 AM
Ah, you haven't heard? He said today that he was speaking informally, and tongue in cheek. The *reporter* who was interviewing him said the same, and doesn't understand why the story went out the way it did. It seems the wire services found the story irresistible if it was played to put JH in a bad light, so they did. For some reason, the press doesn't LIKE Jesse Helms. -Karl
#173836From: Paul IdolNov 23, 1994 8:33 PM
Oh, so it was tongue-in-cheek, I see, all clear now, right on. Skippy-O! Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#173953From: Vic WagnerNov 24, 1994 1:06 PM
Obviously you don't know what treason is. This ain't a monarchy or dictatorship whiere a perceived 'threat' against the leader is treason. Praise the Lord for big favors!!!!
#174049From: Paul IdolNov 24, 1994 9:41 PM
Oh, so threatening the life of the President isn't treason? I have news for you: it is. Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174196From: Vic WagnerNov 25, 1994 7:26 PM
Since when?
#174342From: Paul IdolNov 26, 1994 6:34 PM
Ooops, you're right, it might fall under the aegis of conspiracy to commit treason. BIG FORKIN DIFFERENCE! IT'S ILLEGAL! Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174428From: Vic WagnerNov 27, 1994 2:21 AM
guess what, the description of treason is in the constitution. Killing (or attempting to kill) the president ain't it. Mayhaps you should learn to read before you try to write. Of course it's illegal, it ISN'T TREASON!!!!!!!!
#174565From: Paul IdolNov 27, 1994 6:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that assasination of the President is considered treason nowadays. It may not be explicitly named as such, but I think it is considered so. And conspiracy to commit treason is a pretty major crime. Furthermore, violating one's oath of office may well be high up on the list of heinous crimes too. Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174662From: John DraperNov 28, 1994 1:40 AM
> I'm pretty sure that assasination of the President is considered treason > nowadays. "pretty sure' are you? It is SO typical of the left wingers to argue from a position of wishful thinking; of arguing from a viewpoint of what they think something should be. Tell me, Paul, do you have a copy of the Constitution of the United States? If not, I would be glad to send one to you in machine-readable format, so that you will be able to actually look things up. Of course, this would mean that you would henceforth have to argue from a positoon of knowledge and fact, eschewing the wishful thinking and 'should be' arguments. > It may not be explicitly named as such, but I think it is considered so. If it is considered so, whoever is so considering it that way is wrong. Flat out wrong. It is not explicitly named as such, and in fact, treason is specifically defined and stated to be something else entirely. Your argument is the fuctional equivalent of a man with a broken leg saying that his broken leg should be a warm blanket so that it wouldn't hurt. > And conspiracy to commit treason is a pretty major crime. Might well be. In this case, whether it is or not is completely irrelevant. > Furthermore, violating one's oath of office may well be high up on the > list of heinous crimes too. Might well be. Do you have a point to make> Are you claiming that Helms violated his oath of office? If so, please specify how he did that. -larry
#174378From: Paul IdolNov 26, 1994 10:38 PM
You arch-conservatives are so consumed with hatred that you won't even admit that what Helms said is reprehensible, coming from a man of his position. It's pathetic, and brightly illuminates the gross degree of your hypocrisy. Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174401From: Don Curtis/SYSOPNov 27, 1994 12:36 AM
Paul, What Helms said wasn't reprehensible…it was stupid to say in front of reporters…but that's all. Don
#174566From: Paul IdolNov 27, 1994 6:28 PM
Not reprehensible? Right. So if, say, Gramm gets elected President and Teddy Kennedy says Gramm better not come to Mass. if he values his life, I expect you to act in the same way. Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174430From: Vic WagnerNov 27, 1994 2:21 AM
Boy, you are terribly mis-informed. 1) By NO stretch of the imagination am I conservative. 2) I never said it was a particularly wise comment; as a matter of fact, I haven't commented one way or another on it except to note it isn't treason. If you had the sense of a 1st grader, you'd go find a definition of treason before you continue to make a fool of yourself. I defy you to find any hypocrisy (sic) in what I've said.
#174567From: Paul IdolNov 27, 1994 6:28 PM
>1) By NO stretch of the imagination am I conservative. HAH! >(sic) ??? Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174308From: Steve AhlstromNov 26, 1994 12:48 PM
He did not threaten the life of the President. -sja
#174355From: Paul IdolNov 26, 1994 6:34 PM
He basically incited people to violence against the President. I think that qualifies as conspiracy to commit treason, though maybe not treason itself. Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174363From: Steve AhlstromNov 26, 1994 7:47 PM
He did not incite anyone. He made an offhand, joking comment to a reporter.
#174568From: Paul IdolNov 27, 1994 6:28 PM
Joking. Right. If a Democrat said something like that, there'd be a witch-hunt and then a dead Democrat. Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174577From: Steve AhlstromNov 27, 1994 7:15 PM
Watch it Paul, you've just "threatened" both witches and Democrats. I think you've just committed a conspiracy to commit a conspiracy to commit treason.
#174612From: Paul IdolNov 27, 1994 9:20 PM
<G> Except it's not treason to threaten witches or Democrats, even if I had! Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174627From: Steve AhlstromNov 27, 1994 10:26 PM
Paul, It's not treason to threaten witches or Democrats? Well, you've got both currently residing in the White House, so, according to your theory of conspiracy, you've threatened both.
#174429From: Vic WagnerNov 27, 1994 2:21 AM
Guess again 'legal eagle' and go read the constitution. You have no clue what treason is.
#174435From: John DraperNov 27, 1994 3:11 AM
> He basically incited people to violence against the President. I didn't hear that. Care to post the exact statement(s) where yoiu claim he did incite people to violence aganst the president? -larry
#174569From: Paul IdolNov 27, 1994 6:28 PM
He said something like that if Clinton values his hide, he won't go to SC military bases, after saying that neither -he- nor the military thought that Clinton is an acceptable Commander in Chief. Paul – wearing my black construction paper funeral suit
#174638From: John DraperNov 27, 1994 11:08 PM
Right… and that is NOT a threat. Nor is it treason or conspiracy to commit same. -larry